3 ms·

That is one option, another is baseload geothermal power from Iceland routed to the UK or Ireland[1] and perhaps onwards to mainland Europe (this option was exp

That is one option, another is baseload geothermal power from Iceland routed to the UK or Ireland[1] and perhaps onwards to mainland Europe (this option was explored in the past but seems to have fizzled out). Yet more options are the Danish artificial island for distributing wind power and the UK huge offshore wind projects. All these are possible with today's tech and could dramatically reduce the need for batteries while still getting to net zero. The Sahara idea is a non-starter due to geopolitical risks, no way the EU would agree to having critical infrastructure coming from North Africa. There was a discussion recently on the EU supergrid[2]. If politicians were serious about solving the climate crisis we'd already be building out all this infrastructure instead of everyone wringing their hands about the cost. And meanwhile the likes of Nordstream2 is powering ahead. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26389042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26389042 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26386529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26386529

fuoqi 6y ago
>And meanwhile the likes of Nordstream2 is powering ahead. While you cry about environmental impact of burning Russian natural gas (even though Nord Stream 2 physically can not increase its export to the EU by more than 10% and probably will be used to simply re-route existing supplies from middle-man countries like Poland and Ukraine), the likes of Poland generate 70% of their electricity from coal. But, hey, they don't pay to Russia so it's fine! Until we will have a viable geography-independent solution for grid-level energy storage (which ideally should be able to store several days worth of consumption), massive renewables (aprox. more than 20-30% of a total generation capacity) always will be backed by fossil plants. Well, unless of course you want for blackouts to become a common occurrence. If you indeed care about ecology and climate, then the choice between coal and natural gas should be obvious.

fuoqi 6y ago

>And meanwhile the likes of Nordstream2 is powering ahead. While you cry about environmental impact of burning Russian natural gas (even though Nord Stream 2 physically can not increase its export to the EU by more than 10% and probably will be used to simply re-route existing supplies from middle-man countries like Poland and Ukraine), the likes of Poland generate 70% of their electricity from coal. But, hey, they don't pay to Russia so it's fine! Until we will have a viable geography-independent solution for grid-level energy storage (which ideally should be able to store several days worth of consumption), massive renewables (aprox. more than 20-30% of a total generation capacity) always will be backed by fossil plants. Well, unless of course you want for blackouts to become a common occurrence. If you indeed care about ecology and climate, then the choice between coal and natural gas should be obvious.